Sunday, April 1, 2012

Apologies for the delay in posting this one. My netbook imploded so I spent most of this weekend trying to fix it (read: despairing of all hope, staring blankly at the wall, and vainly googling in the hopes that someone would post a useful fix when they encountered the problem I did). Without further ado:

1034. Randall has observed that various internet communities have different demographics.

1035. In which an analogy is turned on its head to allegedly hilarious effect!

1036. Randall's closet luddite shines through.

1037? I think Randall is trying to say something philosophical here, but the only thing I care about is the comic about Wellesley students ends up portraying them as a mostly-male group, which seems like a pretty big oversight.

captcha: allawa. "ALLAWALLAWALLAWALLAWALLAWALLAWALLAWALLAWALLAWALLAWALLAWALLAWALLAWALLAWALLAH!" said Mahmout as the Jew triggered the bomb he'd made him strap to his waist in return for the life of his family.

The great thing about the 1 April edition is that it proves Randall does have the time to draw about 50x the shit he normally draws - but he is just so lazy and intellectually fat. We contrast with the Carl/Rob capitalist owner/oppressed worker dual because while the same he doesn't sell t-shirts and xkcdsucks visitors use Adblock so can't make a business of it.

the idea of the april fools thing actually I thought was OK, even though all the comics are lame and some of them feature beret man, who i despise. however i read on the forum that it is actually the site admin guy that thought of the idea & did all the work. there's a thankless fucking task if ever there was one, being that guy. everything you do, all your hard work, turns into 'omg randall* is so clever i just wet myself over how clever he is'. munroe is clever in one way i spose, going on all the time about being a coder & what have you so everyone thinks it's him, when actually that other guy runs the whole thing.

*ugh. stop calling him that. he's not your fucking friend, you idiots. he doesn't even arse himself to read the forums so your sycophancy is wasted

oh sure, now you say they can't call him randall, but you can call him randy all you want. no respectable reviews or even blogs that make "reviews" of movies, TV shows, books, games, art, or comics use first names to talk about the author, but the assholes on here treat the author like a fucking child.

i never call him randy. i call him mr munroe, or perhaps 'munroe'. because i agree with you. it's the thing that annoys me most about the forums tbh, this weird kind of personality cult that constantly talks about 'randall' and won't separate the artist from his work or even his website. this is (i guess) why people on here do the same; they take their cue from the fans.

if you read the thread for the april fool one it stands out. 'every strip randall made'; 'randall got his history wrong' (guess it's a 'liberal art' & therefore unimportant); 'i hope he does this' etc. it's not everyone, but as you say, it's weird. when they say 'xkcd usually does this' or 'i enjoy the comic' you really notice how much more normal that sounds. i mean look. 'I just registered (but have been reading Randall's comics for years) so I could post a new one'. that's weird. you can't tell me that it wouldn't be more appropriate and normal to say ' just registered (but have been reading xkcd for years) so I could post a new one'.

in that way i sort of think it's legitimate for people here to copy this if they want. it's a comment on the weirdnesses of the fandom. maybe

maybe it's like this elsewhere. maybe qc fans bang on and on about 'jeph treats us to another absurd slice of genius'. i can't be arsed to go find out.

I thought it was because "Randall" sounds like a surname. But then my English public school upbringing forces me to call everyone by their untitled surname as in, "Six of the best twice weekly for Munroe!"

see weaselsoup's post: you are fooled into thinking that Randall has the rudimentary understanding of Javascript required to detect browser window width and user agent, when in fact he has a separate admin (!!) to think of and implement these things.

Also some people may be fooled into thinking that Umwelt means Intelligent Design is true because REALITY CHANGES ACCORDING TO YOUR PERCEPTION EVOLUTION IS ONLY A THEORY LOL when in fact that's not what Umwelt is saying at all.

I think the joke in the variable comics was supposed to be the confusion caused by everyone discussing "the latest XKCD" and getting into fights over what it was about and then being all like "let's go check it out" and it being different yet again... the joke was this chaos that he believed he was causing in his audience. So, randall is trolling... this time I feel like it was pretty well done and showed significant effort (on someone's part) and I'm all for Randall making the XKCD core audience feel like idiots so I think we can call it a rare win.

I didn't think any of the comics today were funny. but i loved the way that it changes depending on your browser, or your zoom, or what site you are coming from, it was very creative (i don't care who did it, Randall or the server admin, i still think its f'ing awesome). I think you have to admit, some of them were funny (the 4chan one, for example, made me giggle a bit). It was definitely something new, and fun for me, as i tryed to hunt down every single panel. I think these comics are less about the content, and more about discovering every hidden secret in the comics. sorta an easter egg hunt

The umwelt comic disappoints me more than most. While the alt-text suggests a truly subtle and clever comic on the nature of perception, we just end up with a random assortment of comics shuffled out through a bit of javascript code - no hidden message, no intertwined theme, no cunning hint about your browser/location/settings (except a couple of firefox error messages?), no underlying reality; just a technical trick. My mobile just spat out the one which looks like the circle from Ringu - spectacularly meaningless on its own.

Given that most people view a comic once, on one browser, without zooming in and out, the whole point is lost on the casual viewer - contrast this with the best google doodles which practically beg to be played with and offer up their secrets. Truly one for the back slapping forums, sadly.

I wont say the individual comics are bad, but that taken together this is not the smart winking joke about umwelt that it obviously thinks it is. It actually works better as a satire on religion - if you didn't get the comic you desire it's your fault for being in the wrong hemisphere/OS/browser/sect/not praying hard enough/processor architecture. The fact that the inner workings are hidden and obscure, that theories and explanations are debated by the faithful on the forums, only adds to the effect.

I think we all missed a chance to start making fake XKCD strips and posting on the forums "what do you mean none of you guys got these?" and then making them lose their shit trying to figure out how to get that one.

I had the same idea and actually thought of it on time to implement it, but at the time I really couldn't be fucked even trying to convince other people to do the work. Making a quick snarky comment at some dark corner of the internet is one thing, but doing extra stuff is something else, you know? Kind of a hassle, as I'm sure you can understand.

I can't believe I clicked so many of those. It's probably because I'm in France and the France one was so dumb I had to figure out what was up (I'm also unemployed). I mean, the France one seems to have someone who's French in it but uses American slang? Has Randall ever met a foreigner? And are there Americans who know how to spell but not pronounce "touche"? Usually it's the other way around. Plus just saying "touche" like that isn't an expression in France and they don't get it (I've tried).

The only one that was kind of funny was the boston one (0 if by land, 1 if by sea). An author with even an iota of self-editing would have just put that up and said "fuck it" to all the time put into the other comics.

i sort of like the lake diver serial killer one. it is silly enough to raise a smile if you don;t think about it for too long. although no reporter would choose 'lake diver killer' as a nickname for a serial killer because that is too literal and too cumbersome. it would be like the Bay Ripper or the Frogman Slayer or something

the one specially for me ie the uk one (which i didn't even bastard get, so all the scripts & that ain't that great) is meh. we know that it is a thing that we are far too influenced by the US. people have been saying that for quite some time now

Umwelt comic doesn't really work. It's meant to be an illustration of the fact that we all live in different worlds because we all experience the world differently. Fair enough.

But most of us inhabit a version of the world that is internally consistent and makes sense, unlike this comic, which on my browser has a title and alt-text that don't appear to relate to the image, and a person saying they found a snake and "forgot to stop". WTF? Who says that kind of thing in real life. Surely it would be more like: "I found a snake and it seems to be very long".

FFS Randall. April Fools' Day ain't an excuse for this nonsense. If you're gonna do something surreal, it could at least be surreal and clever, not just LOLRANDUMB.

I have fairly decent nails, but they tend to peel, split, bend, and break painfully on impact when neglected. If I get (or give myself) a manicure once a month or so, they grow like crazy and don't break like they did.

I think it's really the buffing and filing that make the big difference. You can get a very cheap 3-sided buffer in the nail section of any drug store, plus get a good file and a strengthening clearcoat base (I like Sally Hanson teflon formula). Use a moisturizing nail polish remover, wash hands well, massage in oil or lotion, do your buffing and filing, and either wash hands again before clearcoat or let the oil/lotion stay on overnight if you can, then wash and paint the next day. You may want to go occasionally to a professional, because they do a very nice job of shaping the nail.

I have taken biotin in times of crisis. All I really noticed is that my nails broke less traumatically when they did break, but my hair certainly went nuts. It actually seems like dairy makes a difference for me, when I'm on a yogurt kick my nails seem stronger.

I'm 32 years of age and have recently started to bald. I wouldn't consider it a major problem, I mean I'm still youngish but old enough to have to expect my body to start doing some of this sort of stuff, except I've only gotten pussy a few times in my life. Twice with one girl and one time each with three others. Baldness is bound to severely impair my capacity to get the minimum amount of pussy that I'll be satisfied with having gotten in my lifetime, so I want to at least stave off the effects long enough to achieve my goals.

Anyway. You say this biotin stuff had the side effect of making your hair go nuts. Do you think it will help with my problem? I'm not worried about my nails.

My strategy is to have a lot of money and to be vaguely handsome and in shape. It works with 90% of women. I haven't met a woman yet who wants a guy who is genuinely "nice", which explains something about the way the world is. Indeed, as I've aged and gone from well-educated freedom-loving hippie to arch-capitalist, the women have gone from disinterested to swooning.

It's all in attitude really. You have to be cool and not rush things, don't try to force it or she might get intimidated. Most women don't like feeling intimidated, but if everybody's happy you might get a chance. Don't worry, you'll work out your own style in time.

weaselsoup, you're kinda affirming 9:26BST. Women go for the stereotypical cool dude who acts to her as if he doesn't care, while he objectively tailors the way he behaves to getting that woman. This satisfies the base biological desire for women to go for the Best Man, who seemingly should be so teeming with women that he doesn't have to try very hard to get one.

For example, you fancy Rob because Rob appears moderately literate yet completely passive toward others. Rob does not respond because he is fat and a faggot - but in the subconscious female brain that's translated as "in demand", making him seem all the hotter.

Of course, women have to be physically attractive and moderately smart too. The idea that smart guys go for bimbos is just a bit of misogyny by mediocre men and ugly women who can't face up to the fact that women can be both smart and pretty.

' while he objectively tailors the way he behaves to getting that woman. '

I wish. most of the time I think it's simpler than that - they act uninterested cos they are uninterested. 'he's just not that into you' speaks the truth. it's less about playing games than we like to think. we just tell ourselves this cos it's easier on our self-esteem to think 'oh it's just a strategy' than to accept that 'yeah, that guy simply doesn't fancy me however much i like him'. here in the uk we are having a lot of fun at the minute with the whole samantha brick trolling 'controversy' which is all about accusing women of not liking attractive women because they are 'jealous'. which is nonsense, but we love discussing this kind of thing, and it distracts us from the real news, &c. anyway, as you say it's no secret that many guys prioritise appearance - so do lots of girls. but i think it's possible to wistfully envy the pretty ones whilst not being misogynistic at all.

You misunderstand. The woman likes the stereotypical cool dude. It's very rare for a woman to go for anyone who actually chases desperately after her - though she will often lap up the attention.

As to whether the guy is genuinely uninterested or just playing The Game, you have to compare and contrast his behaviour around others. The guy's friends probably have a good idea of whether the guy wants you or not. He may not even have noticed enough about you to judge either way- and perhaps you fear rejection so hang around in the background. Remember that to the man in demand there is no need to go after anyone: you have a selection of women who want you and just take them in turn as they ask for you. That forms part of The Game.

Well, I have a foot fetish. So while you fags are arguing about how to get laid I'll be taking a stroll into town and celebrating how the spring weather brings ladies' feet into the open. And by celebrating I mean leering. With the aid of a cameraphone.

Then I'll go home and masturbate furiously.

Total cost to my wallet: $0.Total cost to my heart: $0.Satisfaction of knowing I'm as free yesterday as I am today: priceless.

I know women will reject me because of posts like weaselsoup's. All women only want guys "out of their league", and either:

1. get chosen by one of those guys or 2. settle for someone else as their standards slowly drop.

Both are by chance. In the first case, the alphas have to choose at least some subset of available women. In the second case, well, it depends whether you're around at precisely the right time.

So it's not really worth chasing after any woman. You either become sufficiently amazing that you'll have an ever-changing but ever-present harem to select from, or you just wait a while until one comes along while she's having a standards shake-up.

tl;dr humans are all pretty much the same so anyone who is choosy is just deluding themselves out of unwarranted self-importance.

Anon, you're always out of SOMEBODY'S league. Your complaint implies that you refuse to consider anybody "below" your league for yourself, whatever that means when you're not talking about sets of people willing to consider you, which leaves you the author of your own misfortune.

No, no. The point is that, as weaselsoup shows, women initially look for people who they cannot have. If they knew they could have you, they would not want you. Unless, by small chance, they are picked out by one of these supermen - and there are so very few such men - they will only settle down once they've become disillusioned and given up. Who they then choose is fairly lolrandum.

So it's certainly possible to run out and get a woman if you try hard enough, but only one of the latter sort. And they won't choose you because you are grrreat but because they feel they'll just have to settle for you.

Since when did 'personally I don't understand the appeal of the 'Maybe I'm the first person here to say it but I find 'Sustainable leopard cuddlefish (amirite)' really boring.' dot tumblr dot com' meme' become okay?

But "Very soon, this blog is going to collapse into a rotting collection of 'chris houlihan's room,' 'parsimonious lens,' 'carnival night zone, act 2', 'ksufheriugi,' and 'Personally I don't understand the appeal of ...,' devoid of all other content. And we're all going to have 3:55 to thank for it.", devoid of narrative or context, is no more than shouting wordlessly into the void. It could just as easily be "chris houlihan's room", or "carnival night zone, act 2", or "parsimonious lens", or "ksufheriugi". DISREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS

I know this post won't stop people from posting "Very soon, this blog is going to collapse into a rotting collection of 'chris houlihan's room,' 'parsimonious lens,' 'carnival night zone YOU WILL DIE IN YOUR SLEEP TONIGHT

Plate 17: External male genitalia[[There is salt, ketchup, and mustard to one side.]]Voice #2: SUSTAINABLE! Shit!Voice #1: What the hell? You can't do that in here.Voice #2: Megan, get off the table!Voice #2: Grab the tripod!

LEOPARD !

Plate 18: Erect Penis[[The picture appears to be at an angle.]]Voice #1: We're calling the cops! LOLRANDUMB!Voice #2: RUN!Voice #1: TGI Friday's is a family establishment!" become okay?

anon9:10, so you're telling us you're drunk on a Tuesday night in the middle of a workweek, and the fact that you're visiting this site tells us that you're probably drunk by yourself. And you're calling us losers?

"Also, the "ugh my uterus" poll guy in General is clearly a migrant from xkcdsucks. They're currently embroiled in an attempt to claim that nobody ever says that, EVER (and if they do, it's still somehow not believable dialogue).

Guys, women never talk about their periods without lots of blushing and giggling and seven layers of euphemism and misdirection. SEND A MEMO."

And the artwork is simply amazing. It's so beautiful the way the sky shades from deep blue to pale blue. The fountains are so lovingly rendered I swear I can almost feel the spray of water coming through my screen. The bold stroke of the water dripping off the feet in the last panel really speaks to me. I'm left feeling emotionally uplifted even while the character is literally being uplifted. Randall is an artistic genius.

All the above notwithstanding, what really twists my nipples is - as usual - the fact that the humour isn't based on some clever observation or application of SCIENCE but formed by taking a few words from the Pander Theme and combining them into a randum punchline. Public key encryption is a secure alternative to a safeword in the same way that a padlock on a Fire Exit door is a good alternative to a push bar.

Oh, come off it. That's not a random punchline. It's a simple joke which logically proceeds from a standard format. Not all that bad for what it is really, though it's not clever or witty and is a little bit seedy.

Okay, so today's comic was pretty bad again. Apparently, scientists suck at picking safewords because a) they're holed up in their labs for so long they forget normal human words and b) they're too stupid to realise the point is to have a short word. In other words, 'if we used elaborate scientific terms for everything, that would be inconvenient'. Yes, Randall, we know. That's why we don't. If you do this, shouldn't that be your problem instead of ours?

Because I'm a huge idiot, I first thought this was just about using a long word instead of a short one, which could be applied in many other (more interesting?) situations, like an important special ops mission or in a safehouse during a raptor attack:

Then in my infinite wisdom I realised the word actually meant something and it added nothing because the joke was still the same: 'use a long word instead of a short one = inconvenient (and, most of the time, hilarious!)'.

Also, why is all the action happening offscreen? Why, instead of seeing the guys who are fighting/playing sports/whatever they're doing requiring a safeword, we literally get to look at two random bystanders who pick up a line of conversation from the scene the joke is about and make a stupid comment on it? They're not the joke - the guys offscreen are. This feels like an extremely lazy cop-out because if Randall had to draw two stick figures wrestling or whatever it would be impossible to tell they weren't just having nasty public sex. So instead we get this.

Someday I'll write a book where every scene just picks out a random person and follows him or her around, while everything interesting happens somewhere in the background, close enough for my character to occasionally look around and go 'huh' and wonder what that's all about, but never showing us what's really happening.

Seriously? Because that's how the joke is being set up: by having the reader wonder what the hell is going on. Some of you people really need to learn a thing or two about comedy before trying to criticise xkcd. You're bringing the tone down, and we've kept the tone simmering at a pretty low speed for quite some time.

Then again, considering that you act unaware that they're supposed to be partaking of S&M, maybe you're trying to trick fools like me into arguing with you? Am I your stooge?

Sorry dude, but this joke wasn't going to be funny no matter how it was set up. And it would have worked just as well (meaning not at all) by simply showing the situation - we would not figure out the word was a safeword until the other person responds by 'sorry' or letting go (until then, it seems random gibberish, just like this). As it is, the revelation 'oh, he wasn't just yelling a random word but using it as a safeword' is pretty damn weak already - somehow trying to make that more surprising by not showing us anything only makes the payoff even less rewarding.

Also, who says it's S&M? The comic is ambiguous, and though your mind might stray into the gutter right away, safewords are also used in many types of sport to prevent injury. I went with that option because it seemed less, I don't know, retarded? Even though both activities seem to make no sense whatsoever since we're apparently in a... living room? Public library? I have no clue where we are (hint: the art is meaningless), but I think that two people having hot bondage sex right over there is still a bit more disturbing than two people sparring. Honestly - even if you're right, that's really just going to make matters worse, isn't it?

Still, thanks for trying to tell me this joke is still somehow funny, even if it's lame as hell. I'll be sure to ask next time before deciding whether to laugh or not.

I disagree that the concept of a 'safe word' applies across all fields equally, mostly because the reasoning is totally different.

The reason you have a particular (often unique) safeword for S&M is because most S&M is a form of role play and screaming out 'stop' / calling out for help etc. may well be part of the performance. A unique, unusual safeword (one that would not generally come up in said situation) is thus necessary to break the role play bubble if things end up going too far.

These same considerations generally doesn't apply to sports, unless we're talking about some sort of LARP fencing where people may not want to break character or something. Hence you wouldn't expect to see people coming up with unusual safewords before, say, a bout of boxing. There would be standardised safe words that everyone in the sport knows and is ready for. This fact very much matters to the joke, as the principle concept would have no reason to apply to anything much other than S&M.

I like your post because it's nice and reasonable, but I can't entirely agree - here, let me be a bastard and quote wikipedia:

'In professional competition, saying "stop" or "help" does not indicate surrender and the opponent may continue combat.'

It's okay for me to reference Wikipedia because I know that's what Randall does, and it's his usage we're talking about. Anyway, that's where I got the idea from that it might as well apply to sports, though I'm starting to fear it may indeed be an S&M joke - at any rate, I think it's ambiguous enough that you can envision either option if you really want to.

I just envisioned how this comic would have worked much better. One picture, two figures engaged in S&M, one of them clearly choking to death and going 'Ribulose... kggh... biphosphate... gggghhh... carbo... carboxylase... oxy... gggghhhh...' and then a single caption below, 'Chemists use the worst safewords'.

Same crappy joke, but better executed. Of course it would still be better to have a different joke altogether, but that would be cheating.

Sleaw, I wasn't trying to convince you that the comic is funny. That's subjective and nobody cares whether you find it so or not. I don't necessarily have a high opinion of the humour myself. I was just pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about.

Exactly. How many times has Randall even acknowledged the existence of sports? The only thing I can think of that comes close is 757 where he talks about vuvuzelas in the alt-text (after the World Cup brought them into American consciousness). On the other hand, xkcd is chock full of creepily inappropriate sex. This is sex, not sports.

@2:42BST: We get it, it's Easter Weekend and you're lonely and angry, but no need to get your panties in a bunch and nip at the heels of people here. Go to a porn site, have a good tommy tank, then come back feeling less apopleptic. Express your remaining frustration with a good anti-Randall rant.

What does that even mean? The only thing that comes to mind is Sherman tanks and tommy guns but that makes no sense! Is this some of that incomprehensible authentic rhyming slang, you zany authentic Londoner?

It could be biochemists, but yeah, that's not really the same thing as chemists. There are plenty of non-biochemicals with long names he could have chosen instead (and that don't have handy three syllable nicknames) if he wanted it to be about chemists. I guess all those "less pure" fields are the same in Randall's mind.

Randy won. He finally succeded in making his comics so awful that saying anything bad about them would just be stating the obvious.

I want for proof that even this blog is unable to hate him so much as just pity him. And i'm not talking about Rob, we all know he is in fact Randy, i mean the comments. Even the chris houlihan's room, leopard, and girlookatthatbodydottumblrdotcom have lost their strength. The angry rants do not get as much attention as they once did either.

Though we should never stop fighting the good fight. Sinning by silence and all that (heya to all of you Castle lovers out there).

We should never stop pointing out how douchy and how much of a hack Randy truly is, that he only has 3 "jokes" (randwiki, randumb, and randscienceshit), and how much his fucking fanboys should all suffer eternal hell for sucking up to him and inflating his oversized ego even further.

So come on people, let's bring on the hate, the ranting, and all other things justly diserved by Randy, who shall from now on be known as Biggest Douche Alive, or King of the Hacks.

On a more serious note, xkcd is dangerously overrated as a webcomic. It steals attention away from the good comics. It sucks. But does that make Randall Munroe a douche?

Call me contrary, but I don't really think it's Randall's fault. He started off doing something that he's good at (doodling in his notebook), and had no idea it would get so successful. He accidentally created the most overrated webcomic of all time, and achieved fame beyond his dreams. He created a monster, and cannot stop feeding it. But in the end he's just like Frankenstein; the accidental creator of a monster, not the monster himself.

We shouldn't hate a man for his actions. We should hate his actions - hate on the comic as much as we like. But not the man himself. Except for the lulz.

Read Frankenstein again. He may not physically be a monster, but he's no angel. To some extent, his creation's behaviour stems from his own treatment of his creation, who in some respect proves, perhaps, a reflection of the creator's flaws.

We know Randall's a douche because of all those comics he writes about how great it is to be a douche, both drawing these ideas from a douchey mind and encouraging his slavish audience to typify this douchiness. What type of a person thinks it's great to say something annoying and always say "girllookatthatbody" whenever the other person sighs? Not the type of person whose primary function isn't cleaning out vaginas, that's for sure.

The same sort of logic leads to hating the sky for being blue. Civilisations have fallen because they stopped hating people and started hating things. That's where we find ourselves right now: every human must be accepted, no matter how villainous and harmful, because "it's in his nature". Ballocks!

We can properly hate only the man himself, and we hate him because of his choices. We hate him because he has the opportunity to do something better but he chooses not to. We swell up a storm of annoyance and seethe with outrage that such a man should share the world. Our displeasure and distemper are not only justified but necessary.

For when we meet a man like Randall, the antithesis of all that may be pleasant about a human, we can taste only bile and offer only acrimony. Workers of equity, unite!

To play devils advocate here, I'd say that Randall's intentions are good. No really, they are. The comics you refer to are the ones where he's just joking around about being a douche. But when he has something to say, it comes from the bottom of the heart. I'd cite the Choices series as a prime example. His message is a simple one, to get out there and enjoy life.

And yes, sometimes that message is watered down with a sense of superiority, or white-knighting, or shit like this. But that's because of the format Randall has locked himself into, where he has to say something three times a week, whether he feels inspired or not.

Anon 2:45, if you must hate another human, then you must question his or her motives, why he or she did what they did. You'll find most people have their reasons, no matter how bizarre they are. And sometimes it's harder to understand them when people hide their true motives, because they're scared.

Then ask yourself if you are better than that person, and don't lie to yourself. You have your own faults, as do I. If you can admit your own faults and tell yourself that you are better than that person, and if you know that their motives mean nothing to you, then hate away.

> if you must hate another human, then you must question his or her motives

Hitler's vision was of perfectly formed humans working together in a perfectly moulded world. That's nice except for everything which has to be done to achieve it. As for motives, I say fuck 'em. Anyone can lie to everyone including themselves about their motives. Ask instead: what's the man actually choosing to do?

> ask yourself if you are better than that person

This is the cuddlefish argument: "you can't criticise xkcd unless you could draw a better comic".

> If you can admit your own faults

There is only one proper way to admit a fault: to try to fix it.

Thanks for your response though. Anything to distract me from a law essay.

What I'm trying to say is: 'Hate on someone if they're evil. Otherwise hate on their actions.' The problem is that there is no definition of absolute evil. Until we can find one, I propose an intermediate solution: if TVTropes would call them a Complete Monster then it's okay to hate on them.

Sometimes faults are not worth the time and effort to fix, especially when you could doing something worthwhile. Sometimes you have to accept that you can't reverse sweep, and just work on your doosra instead.

Motives are useful when trying to determine what someone will do next, and whether they will do it again. You do not need to rely on what someone says are their motives either.

> There's a big difference between criticising and hating.Yes. We criticise the act and hate the human who had the choice not to act that way.

> Sometimes faults are not worth the time and effort to fixI can list a million things which I don't do precisely as I would like, from poaching an egg to flapping my arms to fly, but which would take too much effort to change. Where do I draw the line and stop regarding all these things as faults? Better to think of my condition as human and limit the "fault" label to those things I should get to changing for the better.

> Motives are useful when trying to determine what someone will do nextYes, "motive" as a term to describe behaviour prediction is fine - but note that this is different from "motive" as a term to describe why a person thinks or claims he does what he does. The first is as studying a computer program; the latter is philosophistry and has no place in deciding whether to hate someone.

1) I should elucidate - I meant "you can't criticise xkcd unless you could draw a better comic" is different from "you can't hate Randy unless you refrain from engaging in activities that are comparable", which is the point Jon is making, I think.

2) My cricket example was meant to make clear a particular dilemma - one where there are two (or more) clear faults, but working on one to the exclusion of the other is far more beneficial. Panesar could work on his reverse sweep all he wants, but he is going to stay bottom of the batting order. If he could get his doosra working properly (or if he learned to bloody catch), however, he would be a more effective cricketer. Our time is limited, and we sometimes have to live with a fault that we are simply not good enough to fix.

3) Prediction is relevant to hating. Do you hate someone for a one-off aberration as much as you hate someone who shows a compulsion and desire to commit the act again?

2) The fault is the process of not doing what you can do. If you have two things A and B which you might be able to improve, but you cannot improve both, then there is only fault if you fix neither. Once you have identified A as more important and start fixing it, there is no fault in B - it just is. A fault is subjective to the individual's capabilities. While this may take some time to grasp, it is the only way not to end up concluding that every way in which you are not omnipotent is a fault.

3) No. You hate him while he repeatedly commits the act and until he starts acting differently. "Compulsion and desire" are wishy washy and can barely be measured, let alone used as yardsticks for hatred.

1) The point was that if you hate Randy, and you engage in comparable activities, you should also hate yourself. If you don't, then you should readjusting something, possibly your hatred of Randy.

2) A fault is a fault whether you can do something about it or not. It may not help your self-esteem, but that is the way it is. Panesar is a terrible batsmen and fielder, and that is a factor when selection comes around. If he can't improve a great deal in these, then it is a worse fault.

3) I've been inspired to change my mind on this. You can't decide to truly hate someone, it is a reaction that bypasses any conscious thought. I don't hate Randy, but I fucking despise some of his fans. Especially that radtea fucker in the forums...

New comic looks nice! He put effort into it, which is good. There's some small jokes, but they're not the focus of the comic. I think you guys like to mention a certain illustrated picto-blog from time to time (read: in every comment ever)? This might be another example of something that would fit in there.

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.